1 Samuel 15:3 Endorsing Genocide To Watch this episode, go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEEHpeopOrg&t=2s
Let me first say that yes, the Old Testament, the Jewish Tanakh, contains some barbaric events. Throughout history, a number of justifications have been made to excuse such actions, but I think such an approach is misguided.
Instead, I think we should look at what the book of Samuel is. Now, while current Bibles have First and Second Samuel, they really compose one singular work. For instance, the Talmud refers to the entire narrative as the Book of Samuel. The reason we have it in two parts is simply a product of how ancient sources were written.
Scrolls used by scribes were roughly the same size. When Samuel was translated into Greek sometime in the third century BC, it was too large for one scroll. So it was separated into two pieces. But really, we should be looking at it as a whole. It is also possible that the first two chapters of 1 Kings also belongs with the Book of Samuel.
However, and this is where it begins to get more complicated. While the Book of Samuel should be seen as a singular work, it is also a work that is a composite of other works. One clear independent narrative that can be seen is what has been called the Ark Narrative, which is composed of 1 Samuel 4-7:1, as well as 2 Samuel 6.
This Ark Narrative is often seen to be the oldest section of the Book of Samuel. While we can strip it out, we also have to realize that it was purposely integrated into a wider narrative. So we have to treat it as both part of the larger narrative, but we can also look at it removed from that narrative.
A second widely accepted independent narrative in Samuel, but one that is on shakier ground, is the so called Succession Narrative. Along with those independent narratives, we also have a later editor or editors, with the book possibly having edited multiple times, during different time periods.
So we are looking at a work that is a composite work of different narratives and sources that are then later edited and brought together, which at times means that some stories actually appear twice, but in different manners; giving us different versions as one could say.
What this all creates really is a piece of literary art, and we should read it as such. Fact and fiction are meld together in the work, and to read it as a straightforward history really doesn’t work. One could see it as historical fiction.
I point all that out because it’s important to understand the context in which works are written so that we can read through them properly. Some background can go a long way in helping to understand what a text says.
Looking at this narrative, we see a struggle between Saul, and Samuel, who had the unique authority to anoint Saul to be King, and it’s implied that he has the power to strip Saul of that kingship, which is something Samuel will exercise.
Samuel is basically scolding Saul for insubordination, and is stating, you will do as I say; don’t forget you put you where you are.
We then get into a clear command for genocide. Now, Amalekites were a nomadic people to the south of Israel. They are portrayed as viscous adversaries of the Israelites, and later on, the term Amalek, ends up being signifying archenemy. In Deuteronomy 25:17-19, we are told that the Amalekites had massacred many Isrealites. That is what 1 Samuel 15:2 is referencing, and what leads up to the command for genocide.
In verse 3, the one in question, Samuel says, Now, go and strike down Amalek, and put under the ban everything he has, you shall not spare him, and you shall put to death man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.
This is a bit more than what we think of genocide. The ban, or proscription as other translations read, was one of the most cruel practices in Near Eastern warfare. It called for total destruction. To be clear, this is a practice that wasn’t unique to the Israelites, but it is a practice that is seen throughout the ancient Near East. That doesn’t excuse it, but it does put it into context.
So it truly is a horrendous act that is being commanded. But it should be mentioned that it isn’t necessarily the command of God. Throughout much of Samuel, there is ambiguity as to whether the command is coming from God or from Samuel himself, who claims to speak for God.
Standing back, we can say that it was Samuel speaking. That Samuel was making such a command; a command that is shaped by current practices within warfare at that time and place. We also have to realize that this isn’t necessarily history, but a piece of literary art.
So where do I stand on this verse?
Make no mistake, it portrays a terrible and horrific practice of ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. It’s not something to be praised. We can understand it from a historical perspective, but we shouldn’t try to justify such actions.
